It's deference to the executive branch that seems to be what the majority is looking at. Both Gorsuch & Kavanaugh treated citizenship inquiries as unremarkable in their questions during the oral arguments.

Whether John Roberts realizes it or not, his historical reputation will be that of a modern day Roger Taney. We need to accept that Republicans don't actually care about democracy ó it's WHITE POWER! all the way down. The Court is now illegitimate, and I shudder to think what sort of nastiness will be required to pry power from these unprincipled bigots.

It's deference to the executive branch that seems to be what the majority is looking at. Both Gorsuch & Kavanaugh treated citizenship inquiries as unremarkable in their questions during the oral arguments.

This. Frankly I tend to agree. I've never thought it was a good argument here or in the immigration case to make the argument that "well yes any other President could do this but Trump is uniquely so bad that otherwise legitimate presidential powers can never, ever, ever be exercised by him but only by him because him am bad!"

Absolutely disgusting and undemocratic. I would link the NYT article but I haven't reached 20 posts yet.

It's remarkable how many methods of stretching the concept of "democracy" are yet undiscovered.

I think a government that earned 3 million fewer votes than the opposition conspiring with its illegitimate Supreme Court majority in an effort to rig the census and create a deliberate undercount would qualify as undemocratic.

It's deference to the executive branch that seems to be what the majority is looking at. Both Gorsuch & Kavanaugh treated citizenship inquiries as unremarkable in their questions during the oral arguments.

This. Frankly I tend to agree. I've never thought it was a good argument here or in the immigration case to make the argument that "well yes any other President could do this but Trump is uniquely so bad that otherwise legitimate presidential powers can never, ever, ever be exercised by him but only by him because him am bad!"

To add to this, I did some research into the prior use of the citizenship question on the long form used through 2000. The question went to 1 out of 6 household so the statistics are highly relevant. There was a drop off in participation across all groups for the long form which isn't surprising given the time the long form took to complete. There was also a drop off in participation by minorities and immigrants on both forms which is independent of the citizenship question. I could not find that there was a steeper drop off by immigrants than what would be expected by the combined statistics of the two separate factors of long form and lower immigrant response on all forms.

It is especially interesting to look at CA comparing the 1990 response rate to that of 2000. Prop 187 (1994) denied services to illegal immigrants and might have been expected to further undermine counts in that state. However Gov Davis invested state funds to spend on city census committees and the result was an increase in minority and immigrant participation in 2000 compared to 1990 despite the onus of Prop 187.

The CA experience in 2000 suggests that reduced response rates by immigrants and minorities can be more than overcome through state and city investment in Census Complete Count efforts. Another way of saying it is that a public education campaign has more positive impact than the negative impact of a citizenship question.

It's deference to the executive branch that seems to be what the majority is looking at. Both Gorsuch & Kavanaugh treated citizenship inquiries as unremarkable in their questions during the oral arguments.

This. Frankly I tend to agree. I've never thought it was a good argument here or in the immigration case to make the argument that "well yes any other President could do this but Trump is uniquely so bad that otherwise legitimate presidential powers can never, ever, ever be exercised by him but only by him because him am bad!"

To add to this, I did some research into the prior use of the citizenship question on the long form used through 2000. The question went to 1 out of 6 household so the statistics are highly relevant. There was a drop off in participation across all groups for the long form which isn't surprising given the time the long form took to complete. There was also a drop off in participation by minorities and immigrants on both forms which is independent of the citizenship question. I could not find that there was a steeper drop off by immigrants than what would be expected by the combined statistics of the two separate factors of long form and lower immigrant response on all forms.

It is especially interesting to look at CA comparing the 1990 response rate to that of 2000. Prop 187 (1994) denied services to illegal immigrants and might have been expected to further undermine counts in that state. However Gov Davis invested state funds to spend on city census committees and the result was an increase in minority and immigrant participation in 2000 compared to 1990 despite the onus of Prop 187.

The CA experience in 2000 suggests that reduced response rates by immigrants and minorities can be more than overcome through state and city investment in Census Complete Count efforts. Another way of saying it is that a public education campaign has more positive impact than the negative impact of a citizenship question.

All well and good, except that the intent is inherently corrupt. No one is honestly expecting to accurately gauge the number of undocumented immigrants via voluntary responses. So what's the purpose? To produce a deliberate under-count that benefits the GOP politically.

It's deference to the executive branch that seems to be what the majority is looking at. Both Gorsuch & Kavanaugh treated citizenship inquiries as unremarkable in their questions during the oral arguments.

This. Frankly I tend to agree. I've never thought it was a good argument here or in the immigration case to make the argument that "well yes any other President could do this but Trump is uniquely so bad that otherwise legitimate presidential powers can never, ever, ever be exercised by him but only by him because him am bad!"

To add to this, I did some research into the prior use of the citizenship question on the long form used through 2000. The question went to 1 out of 6 household so the statistics are highly relevant. There was a drop off in participation across all groups for the long form which isn't surprising given the time the long form took to complete. There was also a drop off in participation by minorities and immigrants on both forms which is independent of the citizenship question. I could not find that there was a steeper drop off by immigrants than what would be expected by the combined statistics of the two separate factors of long form and lower immigrant response on all forms.

It is especially interesting to look at CA comparing the 1990 response rate to that of 2000. Prop 187 (1994) denied services to illegal immigrants and might have been expected to further undermine counts in that state. However Gov Davis invested state funds to spend on city census committees and the result was an increase in minority and immigrant participation in 2000 compared to 1990 despite the onus of Prop 187.

The CA experience in 2000 suggests that reduced response rates by immigrants and minorities can be more than overcome through state and city investment in Census Complete Count efforts. Another way of saying it is that a public education campaign has more positive impact than the negative impact of a citizenship question.

All well and good, except that the intent is inherently corrupt. No one is honestly expecting to accurately gauge the number of undocumented immigrants via voluntary responses. So what's the purpose? To produce a deliberate under-count that benefits the GOP politically.

in 2009 and 2010 I went to a number of redistricting conferences in advance of the Census data release. At more than one of those meetings I listened to lawyers who typically worked with Dems talk with regret about the lack of a citizenship question in 2010. In 2007 SCOTUS ruled that CVAP data was the appropriate set to use in VRA cases but it was only in the ACS data after 2005 and didn't align with the Census data. The result was that there was going to be less accuracy and therefore a more difficult time winning VRA cases.

The current intent may not be based on protecting minority rights under the VRA, but having that data will benefit those making legal challenges. And as I pointed out the data shows that a state can overcome the negative stigma of the question if they want to make the effort.

The idea that it's unacceptable for a country conducting a census to ask whether respondents to that census are citizens of the country in question deserves more scrutiny than it's getting from most Democratic-aligned groups.

It's almost enough to make me wonder whether the intent here is not so much genuine concern as a desire to preemptively cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 Census. I recall politicians in NYC getting a great deal of political mileage out of complaining when the previous census showed surprisingly unimpressive population growth throughout the city.

The idea that it's unacceptable for a country conducting a census to ask whether respondents to that census are citizens of the country in question deserves more scrutiny than it's getting from most Democratic-aligned groups.

It's almost enough to make me wonder whether the intent here is not so much genuine concern as a desire to preemptively cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 Census. I recall politicians in NYC getting a great deal of political mileage out of complaining when the previous census showed surprisingly unimpressive population growth throughout the city.

The issue is the accuracy of the count, and the fact that statisticians have shown real concerns that the question may materially harm the count's accuracy.

The issue is the accuracy of the count, and the fact that statisticians have shown real concerns that the question may materially harm the count's accuracy.

There's a glut of commentary to that effect, but not much more than that.

The quick experiment that Muon describes in this thread is more evidence than I've seen mentioned by any major media outlet on the subject. Most articles don't even mention the sampling problems that the ACS suffers from when they discuss how the Census Bureau collects this data now.

There is strong evidence that it's more difficult to enumerate non-citizens, but there is nothing to tie their response rates to the citizenship question.

The idea that it's unacceptable for a country conducting a census to ask whether respondents to that census are citizens of the country in question deserves more scrutiny than it's getting from most Democratic-aligned groups.

It's almost enough to make me wonder whether the intent here is not so much genuine concern as a desire to preemptively cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 Census. I recall politicians in NYC getting a great deal of political mileage out of complaining when the previous census showed surprisingly unimpressive population growth throughout the city.

It's deference to the executive branch that seems to be what the majority is looking at. Both Gorsuch & Kavanaugh treated citizenship inquiries as unremarkable in their questions during the oral arguments.

This. Frankly I tend to agree. I've never thought it was a good argument here or in the immigration case to make the argument that "well yes any other President could do this but Trump is uniquely so bad that otherwise legitimate presidential powers can never, ever, ever be exercised by him but only by him because him am bad!"

To add to this, I did some research into the prior use of the citizenship question on the long form used through 2000. The question went to 1 out of 6 household so the statistics are highly relevant. There was a drop off in participation across all groups for the long form which isn't surprising given the time the long form took to complete. There was also a drop off in participation by minorities and immigrants on both forms which is independent of the citizenship question. I could not find that there was a steeper drop off by immigrants than what would be expected by the combined statistics of the two separate factors of long form and lower immigrant response on all forms.

It is especially interesting to look at CA comparing the 1990 response rate to that of 2000. Prop 187 (1994) denied services to illegal immigrants and might have been expected to further undermine counts in that state. However Gov Davis invested state funds to spend on city census committees and the result was an increase in minority and immigrant participation in 2000 compared to 1990 despite the onus of Prop 187.

The CA experience in 2000 suggests that reduced response rates by immigrants and minorities can be more than overcome through state and city investment in Census Complete Count efforts. Another way of saying it is that a public education campaign has more positive impact than the negative impact of a citizenship question.

All well and good, except that the intent is inherently corrupt. No one is honestly expecting to accurately gauge the number of undocumented immigrants via voluntary responses. So what's the purpose? To produce a deliberate under-count that benefits the GOP politically.

in 2009 and 2010 I went to a number of redistricting conferences in advance of the Census data release. At more than one of those meetings I listened to lawyers who typically worked with Dems talk with regret about the lack of a citizenship question in 2010. In 2007 SCOTUS ruled that CVAP data was the appropriate set to use in VRA cases but it was only in the ACS data after 2005 and didn't align with the Census data. The result was that there was going to be less accuracy and therefore a more difficult time winning VRA cases.

The current intent may not be based on protecting minority rights under the VRA, but having that data will benefit those making legal challenges. And as I pointed out the data shows that a state can overcome the negative stigma of the question if they want to make the effort.

Yeah, I guess I just don't believe that R-SCOTUS actually gives a sh!+ about the VRA ó see Shelby v. Holder. The overarching goal should be an accurate census, and any question that significantly diminishes that outcome should be discarded. But again, the GOP intent is purely corrupt.

The issue is the accuracy of the count, and the fact that statisticians have shown real concerns that the question may materially harm the count's accuracy.

There's a glut of commentary to that effect, but not much more than that.

The quick experiment that Muon describes in this thread is more evidence than I've seen mentioned by any major media outlet on the subject. Most articles don't even mention the sampling problems that the ACS suffers from when they discuss how the Census Bureau collects this data now.

There is strong evidence that it's more difficult to enumerate non-citizens, but there is nothing to tie their response rates to the citizenship question.

I see lots of red-herrings, very little evidence. Either the citizenship question is likely to produce an under-count, or it's not. If it is, what's the purpose? Problem is, the point of the census is to establish an accurate count. It's absolutely absurd to think that a voluntary citizenship question will be answered accurately by undocumented immigrants, so the motive is quite transparent. I mean, we all know this is rat-f***kery, so you won't object when a future Democratic president attempts to reduce the response rate of white trash? As long as there's a pretext, right? Sample Q: How may times have you drank to excess or used meth this month, you bloated, racist piece of sh!+?

The issue is the accuracy of the count, and the fact that statisticians have shown real concerns that the question may materially harm the count's accuracy.

There's a glut of commentary to that effect, but not much more than that.

The quick experiment that Muon describes in this thread is more evidence than I've seen mentioned by any major media outlet on the subject. Most articles don't even mention the sampling problems that the ACS suffers from when they discuss how the Census Bureau collects this data now.

There is strong evidence that it's more difficult to enumerate non-citizens, but there is nothing to tie their response rates to the citizenship question.

I see lots of red-herrings, very little evidence. Either the citizenship question is likely to produce an under-count, or it's not. If it is, what's the purpose? Problem is, the point of the census is to establish an accurate count. It's absolutely absurd to think that a voluntary citizenship question will be answered accurately by undocumented immigrants, so the motive is quite transparent. I mean, we all know this is rat-f***kery, so you won't object when a future Democratic president attempts to reduce the response rate of white trash? As long as there's a pretext, right? Sample Q: How may times have you drank to excess or used meth this month, you bloated, racist piece of sh!+?

The question holds enough relevance that it is included on the American Community Survey and has been included on some past censuses. To contend that federal interest in the subject is bizarre or necessarily malignant simply isn't credible.

If the purpose of the decennial census were only to establish a population count, then even the short-form survey goes well beyond that in its scope. People who insist that this is wrong sound like John Birchers raving about the gold-fringed flag. Anyone interested in federal data collection must realize that right-wingers are still trying to take down the American Community Survey, not to mention other important data sources, with exactly this argument.

There's no real indication that a citizenship question would produce any more of an undercount than already occurs with migrants, black men, indigenous peoples, and several other groups (and that the Bureau goes to great lengths to address). Ongoing partisan campaigns to de-legitimize the Census, led by both Democratic demagogues like Stacey Abrams and Republican demagogues like Donald Trump, are more concerning.

Your bigoted comments about "white trash" speak for themselves. It's unfortunate that the Democratic Party has become such a comfortable home for prejudice. It's enough to make you wonder how they might talk about the next group that turns against them in large numbers.